Supreme Court citing more foreign cases

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Japher
You may only have one child, or you will have to pay a fine, and To go to college you must be intelligent, like in China

Not accurate. In China the first child is eligible for state benefits (health and education). Extra children aren't.

The parent's aren't "fined" by a court - they just have to be rich enough to pay for things the first child gets for nothing.

[Ned]

In my view, right to privacy is an aspect of liberty. The protection of Liberty is object of the main body the Constitution and is expressly protected by the 14th amendment. But assuredly, the United States did not invent Liberty or the right of privacy. In determining the meaning of Liberty and the boundaries of the right of privacy, surely we can look abroad and to history for a common understanding of what these terms meant at the time of writing the Constitution and what they mean today to humanity. I see nothing wrong therefore in Supreme Court looking to European views on the right of privacy.

[Dis]

well in this case they were striking down a stupid law.

So I'll escuse them this time.

But if they start trying to turn american into some foreign country- then I might have a problem. Not that I can do anything about that, since we don't elect supreme court judges.

[Ramo]

What che said. The ruling was well-grounded on the 14th (for two reasons - liberty as Kennedy cited and equal protection as O'Conner cited), as well as the 9th as the courts didn't cite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Che: what do you consider Ginsburg then? She's definetly on the left . Hell, she wants to be Brennan .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Black, Brennan, Douglass and Marshall were a hell of a line, though.

[Berzerker]

I wonder if you are pissed with Mississippi refers to an Arkansas case in their rulings?

I would be unless the state constitutions were identical and Arkansas got it right.

[DinoDoc]

bump

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
yeah but those foreign laws were to figure out intent and common practice as in what does law X mean and how does it traditionally apply in English Common law. It has nothing to do with determining if something like homosexual acts can be considered immoral or not. I am especially concerned about this is the far left is no longer even basing their opinions upon American laws nor the constitution.

So NOT arresting gay people is extreme?

Funny thing is, people like you complain about high crime then want to police to waste resources by arresting people for consentual acts of sex.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The constitution and declaration of independence are very clear about the US being a sovereign nation which makes it's own laws and that the Congress is the body which makes those laws.

I find your xenophobia really amazing. They haven't applied Art 8 ECHR, after all. Or did they?

You're dealing with very open terms in fundamental rights - what is liberty, what is justified, what is reasonable. Taking the opinions of other courts that have to make the same determinations can shed some light on the issue, but any decision is still grounded on your domestic law. Just don't ignore that your Constitution and other western human rights texts share the same roots.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would be unless the state constitutions were identical and Arkansas got it right.

Why? On a case involving something with Arkansas has already ruled on, but Mississippi may have not, why not see how other states have ruled on the same issue? Everyone in law knows that decisions of other jurisdictions are secondary authority anyway.